Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #14

[otto]

Except for the issue of staging, you can't possibly think the Jackson murder is in any way comparable to the Perugia murder. So I don't know what are "the many similarities" of which you speak.

Frankly, I'm not convinced Noura is guilty, but then I only watched the single one-hour program last night and read the transcript in your link.

But Noura's mother had considerable control over Noura (via the purse strings) and was demanding that Noura take responsibility for her own life. That is a traditional point of friction between parent and child. There is no equivalent motive for AK or RS to kill MK, much less for them to enter into a conspiracy with RG.

***

As for the supposedly staged break in, the Jackson case would only be comparable to Perugia if Filomena had left her bedroom door locked from the outside. She did not. In the Jackson case, the garage doors were supposedly locked, so gaining entry to the garage would not admit an intruder into the house. Such was not the case in Perugia.

The location of the staged break-in was problematic for Noura, and the location of the staged break-in is problematic for the Perugia murderers. Rudy's history is to climb of the balcony and enter throught the French doors. That's what he did in the past, and this cottage has exactly the same circumstances of an easy to climb balcony and French doors. This is the route a real burglar would take to enter the cottage rather than climb a shear wall, open shutters, then climb down, heave a heavy rock through the window and inside shutters, then scale a 20 foot flat wall like spiderman ... all without leaving a single shard of glass on the ground below or receiving a single cut from climbing in through the window.

The similarities, as I pointed out, are absence of DNA, absence of alibi, staged break-in questions and guilty verdicts. I am drawing attention to the arguments made in the Meredith Kercher case where the absence of DNA, absence of alibi and staged break-in are the same ... I'm not saying that these two women are the same and that they committed an identical crime. The purpose of mentioning the case is to provide a counter-example to the arguments made in efforts to make Knox appear innocent. Those arguments do not make people appear innocent as there are examples of where those arguments resulted in a guilty verdict.

 

[otto]

So now you're saying Sollecito is willing to go to prison for life out of love for Knox? Because we've read countless sources that say the two have little contact.

I haven't said that ... have I.

What I have said is that the murderers decided to stick together at the beginning and keeping their mouths shut - hoping to get away with murder. If one opts for the fast track, the other goes down as well.

 

[otto]

Per Hendry, the terrace may have provided the easier access, but it was also the most visible at night and tended to leave one trapped if discovered.

The broken window provided the most cover and the easiest escape up until one was inside the cottage.

Hendry can say whatever he wants, but we know that Filomina's bedroom is clearly visible from the well lit road, whereas the back of the house faces the valleys and is not clearly visible.

 

[Nova]

The location of the staged break-in was problematic for Noura, and the location of the staged break-in is problematic for the Perugia murderers. Rudy's history is to climb of the balcony and enter throught the French doors. That's what he did in the past, and this cottage has exactly the same circumstances of an easy to climb balcony and French doors. This is the route a real burglar would take to enter the cottage rather than climb a shear wall, open shutters, then climb down, heave a heavy rock through the window and inside shutters, then scale a 20 foot flat wall like spiderman ... all without leaving a single shard of glass on the ground below or receiving a single cut from climbing in through the window.

The similarities, as I pointed out, are absence of DNA, absence of alibi, staged break-in questions and guilty verdicts. I am drawing attention to the arguments made in the Meredith Kercher case where the absence of DNA, absence of alibi and staged break-in are the same ... I'm not saying that these two women are the same and that they committed an identical crime. The purpose of mentioning the case is to provide a counter-example to the arguments made in efforts to make Knox appear innocent. Those arguments do not make people appear innocent as there are examples of where those arguments resulted in a guilty verdict.

1. I'll give you absence of DNA and guilty verdicts.
2. AK has an alibi in RS and vice versa.
3. Though LE questioned the break ins in both cases, there are no similarities in the questions.

 

[Nova]

I haven't said that ... have I.

What I have said is that the murderers decided to stick together at the beginning and keeping their mouths shut - hoping to get away with murder. If one opts for the fast track, the other goes down as well.

So? Why would that stop either from taking the fast track? They knew each other for less than a week over two years ago.

Of course, another possibility is that they have "stuck together" because both are telling the truth as well as they can recall it.

 

[Nova]

Hendry can say whatever he wants, but we know that Filomina's bedroom is clearly visible from the well lit road, whereas the back of the house faces the valleys and is not clearly visible.

I don't know who "we" are in your statement, but I'm inclined to trust Hendry.

The road is raised and curves around the cottage, allowing cars to illuminate the terrace as they approach the curve. IIRC, Filomena's window was blocked by a tree which still had leaves on the night of the murder.

 

[SkewedView]

For burglars, point of entry varies considerably depending on factors that are often transient and not readily apparent after the fact. Too often even members of LE make the mistake of thinking that criminals follow a pattern religiously - a good example of such mistaken thinking is in the case of BTK, where his last three kills were never associated with him until he himself revealed his involvement, because he changed his B&E MO.

An interesting thing to note with that case was that LE was dead certain that the husband of one of those victims had staged the whole thing and killed her, and they ruined his life pursuing him until the truth was revealed.

In both the US and Italy, the burden of proof for any assertions lies with the prosecution - and proving staging requires careful documentation of the scene in question - an investigator's opinion means jack without it. ILE neglected to properly document the scene. I'm sorry, but ILE failed the prosecution here and left them with a very weak argument.

 

[SkewedView]

One thing that I'd like to note:

Massai's argument that the defense didn't need an independent review of the evidence because they had appointed observers of the original testing is nonsense - observers are just that: people that stand around and watch, with little to no interaction or input into the events at hand, or access to important background information. A review, on the other hand, involves delving deeply into how the evidence was collected, transported, stored, handled and tested. There is a difference in the level of analysis that cannot be underestimated.

That said, Otto was correct in stating that such reviews are rejected by courts almost as a standard procedure (thus, Massai's ruling in this case is not a sign of bias). IMO, this is a travesty that needs correcting in cases that have heavy sentences, because bad collection and testing procedures have been popping up in far too many cases that have finally been reviewed. This has resulted in a heavy financial and human cost that makes the review costs more than worth paying. Regardless of the results of this review, it is to the current Judge's credit that he has allowed this one.

 

[Nova]

One thing that I'd like to note:

Massai's argument that the defense didn't need an independent review of the evidence because they had appointed observers of the original testing is nonsense - observers are just that: people that stand around and watch, with little to no interaction or input into the events at hand, or access to important background information. A review, on the other hand, involves delving deeply into how the evidence was collected, transported, stored, handled and tested. There is a difference in the level of analysis that cannot be underestimated.

That said, Otto was correct in stating that such reviews are rejected by courts almost as a standard procedure (thus, Massai's ruling in this case is not a sign of bias). IMO, this is a travesty that needs correcting in cases that have heavy sentences, because bad collection and testing procedures have been popping up in far too many cases that have finally been reviewed. This has resulted in a heavy financial and human cost that makes the review costs more than worth paying. Regardless of the results of this review, it is to the current Judge's credit that he has allowed this one.

As I understand it, all of Italy got to watch the techs pass around the bra clasp and then put it back on the floor for a photograph. And yet that same bra clasp was accepted as viable evidence during the trial.

So if millions of viewers don't make a difference, I don't know what one defense rep can do.

 

[SkewedView]

As I understand it, all of Italy got to watch the techs pass around the bra clasp and then put it back on the floor for a photograph. And yet that same bra clasp was accepted as viable evidence during the trial.

So if millions of viewers don't make a difference, I don't know what one defense rep can do.

It is a matter of peer review. In order for criticism of the evidence to be admissible, it needs to have a full, technical review by qualified, preferably certified professionals in the appropriate field. This is especially important because there are very few Judges who are experienced in the technical aspects of the forensic sciences.

To be honest, most in the legal field have a lesser understanding of the sciences than a typical freshman in high school, and it can legitimately be argued that they don't need it, as long as the prosecution and the defense both have access to qualified experts that are on equal footing with regards to access to evidence and the associated data. The idea is that if one side's expert makes an erroneous assertion, the other side's expert will be able to refute it.

In practice, at least with lay jurists, it is often the more easy to understand and relate to expert that wins, not necessarily the one that is actually correct. In addition, it is rare for a defense expert to have true parity of resources, which leads me to conclude that a minimum level of understanding of proper forensic methods should be required to pass the bar.

 

[SkewedView]

Fast track requires admitting some guilt. Knox and Sollecito have stuck together throughout ... with Sollecito still giving Knox little treats, chocolates and so on throughout the trial. If Sollecito admits any guilt, he takes Knox down with him.

Every killer couple that I am aware of has turned on each other soon after being apprehended, let alone one that existed for only a week. A couple of cookies does not a true romance make. Especially since AK is, as you say, nothing special. Not to mention the pair has no contact with each other outside of court appearances, during which they have more to occupy their attention than making googly eyes at each other.

So again, how do we have this man that is supposedly so weak that he was convinced by a one week lover to commit such a truly horrific crime, and yet unlike all other submissive members of homicidal pairings, he doesn't cave to police pressure or the lure of a reduced sentence? I'm sorry, but the cognitive dissonance involved here is a little hard to ignore.

 

[SMK]

Every killer couple that I am aware of has turned on each other soon after being apprehended, let alone one that existed for only a week. A couple of cookies does not a true romance make. Especially since AK is, as you say, nothing special. Not to mention the pair has no contact with each other outside of court appearances, during which they have more to occupy their attention than making googly eyes at each other.

So again, how do we have this man that is supposedly so weak that he was convinced by a one week lover to commit such a truly horrific crime, and yet unlike all other submissive members of homicidal pairings, he doesn't cave to police pressure or the lure of a reduced sentence? I'm sorry, but the cognitive dissonance involved here is a little hard to ignore.

I agree completely. Over the years I have read many true crime books - don't ask me why, but I have - and I am struck by the number of times a case is actually only solved by the participating members turning on each other. I can think of several cases off the top of my head: The Pamela Smart case (her students turned on each other and also told on her, despite romance, long friendship, sworn promises); the case of the 3 girls who killed their friend (ratted each other out after some months); a husband and mistress where the mistress ratted him out, even though she participated in the life insurance murder of his wife; and another teacher who had students kill her husband with the promise of a huge payoff (ratted on her and on eachother). That Guede, Knox, and Sollecito did not do the same is likely because they were not there together.

 

[Nova]

It is a matter of peer review. In order for criticism of the evidence to be admissible, it needs to have a full, technical review by qualified, preferably certified professionals in the appropriate field. This is especially important because there are very few Judges who are experienced in the technical aspects of the forensic sciences.

To be honest, most in the legal field have a lesser understanding of the sciences than a typical freshman in high school, and it can legitimately be argued that they don't need it, as long as the prosecution and the defense both have access to qualified experts that are on equal footing with regards to access to evidence and the associated data. The idea is that if one side's expert makes an erroneous assertion, the other side's expert will be able to refute it.

In practice, at least with lay jurists, it is often the more easy to understand and relate to expert that wins, not necessarily the one that is actually correct. In addition, it is rare for a defense expert to have true parity of resources, which leads me to conclude that a minimum level of understanding of proper forensic methods should be required to pass the bar.

Thank you, SV. I'm sorry for being flippant; I do know why the DNA needs to be reviewed and that it isn't just collection methods, but interpretation of data that has to be scrutinized.

On second thought, I guess I'm not sorry for kidding around, because your response is very educational.

 

[Nova]

Every killer couple that I am aware of has turned on each other soon after being apprehended, let alone one that existed for only a week. A couple of cookies does not a true romance make. Especially since AK is, as you say, nothing special. Not to mention the pair has no contact with each other outside of court appearances, during which they have more to occupy their attention than making googly eyes at each other.

So again, how do we have this man that is supposedly so weak that he was convinced by a one week lover to commit such a truly horrific crime, and yet unlike all other submissive members of homicidal pairings, he doesn't cave to police pressure or the lure of a reduced sentence? I'm sorry, but the cognitive dissonance involved here is a little hard to ignore.

Well, of course they haven't turned on one another because the bond between them is so powerful. Apparently more powerful than any such bond in criminal history. (Even Dr. Crippen's paramour quickly crumbled and testified against him once they were caught. I mention this because along with Jack the Ripper, Crippen & Co. seem the beginning of modern true crime literature and cases.)

But like so much of the supposed "evidence" against AK and RS, the fact that they have never turned on one another is turned around and put forth as evidence against them: an argument that only makes sense if one starts from the assumption that AK and RS conspired with RG to kill MK.

 

[SMK]

@ Otto: I will grant this similarity between the Knox and Noura case:

Detectives now have their theory that Noura is the killer. But there's one big problem: there was no DNA, blood or fingerprints from Noura at the crime scene.

There was DNA from someone else at the crime scene.

"We know there was some unknown DNA that was on a bed sheet," Merritt said.
"It could have been skin. It could have been sweat," added Miller.

The investigators were never able to find out whose DNA it was. The only thing they could say for sure was that it wasn't Jennifer's or Noura's.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml#ixzz1OSMRjKZr

But what ruined it all for me was Rudy Guede. So many signs of him found in the room. His history of unlawful entry. His aggression with females. Had there been no Rudy, I might view this more like the Noura Jackson case.

 

[SMK]

And since you opened up this:worms: Otto, :worms: I am beginning to think Noura WAS railroaded: :websleuther: :snooty:

From the 48 hours link in my post above:

Even though police have almost no scientific evidence against her, they are convinced Noura hated her mother, snapped that night and killed her in a fit of rage.

"I think the biggest concern everybody had was we don't have the eyewitness. We don't have the smoking gun and we didn't have the DNA," Sgt. Helldorfer said. "But what we had was a lot better than what we didn't have."

Three-and-a-half months after Jennifer Jackson was stabbed to death in her bedroom, police finally arrested her daughter and charged her with first-degree murder.

"My grief was interrupted because you get arrested and you have your back up against the wall and you're constantly having, y'know, to explain 'I didn't do this, I didn't do this,'" Noura told Richard Schlesinger. "You don't have time to grieve. You have to defend yourself."

Noura insisted that police have her relationship with her mother all wrong.

"There was a good rapport there," she said. "I felt comfortable with allowing my mom to know whatever was going on in my life. We didn't have any secrets and it was a two-way street."

Noura's supporters, mothers who knew Jennifer as well, described her as a devoted, loving daughter.

"There's no way that Noura Jackson could have done that to anybody. And never to her mother! She loved her mother," said Ansley Larsson. "…I don't know a whole lot of 16- year-olds that will cancel their plans to hang out with their mother. 'Mom needs me.' Woosh," Larsson motioned with her hand, "There'd she go."

Dana Frederick's daughter was Noura's best friend. Frederick said Noura practically lived with her.

"Had there been a darker side to Noura, I would have picked up on it," she explained. "Something would have raised a red flag to me and there were no red flags, ever."

But Noura doesn't just need good friends anymore, she needed a good lawyer. Memphis defense attorney Valerie Corder took her case for free.

"Ms. Jackson wasn't shot. Ms. Jackson was stabbed over 50 times," Corder explained. "It is very difficult to believe that her teenage daughter could have wanted her dead, much less have committed the crime."

Corder will argue that the very evidence police said proves Noura is a killer may actually prove she is not - especially a photo of Noura's cut.

"What was significant in my opinion about that photograph is the pristine nails," Corder told Schlesinger. "My client's nails were not bloody. They were not torn. They were not chipped. They looked as if she had been handling paper instead of committing a brutal crime."

Corder believes other pictures the police took within days of the murder might also prove that Noura is innocent. "She's photographed from head to toe and there are no injuries. There are no bruises… It doesn't appear that she was in hand-to-hand combat."

"If this was such a violent struggle, wouldn't you have expected Noura to have more wounds on her?" Schlesinger asked Helldorfer. Same question can be asked RE Amanda Knox.

"No, because Noura had the weapon and she was the offender," he replied. "Jennifer was totally defensive, trying to block. She wasn't trying to attack."

But Corder said that doesn't explain away the cops' big problem: why they didn't find any blood or DNA evidence linking Noura to the crime.

"So rarely is a teenager accused of such a horrific crime with such a paltry amount of evidence," she noted.

"DNA evidence? I mean, that speaks for itself to me," Noura told Schlesinger.

"That your DNA wasn't found there?" he asked.

"Not only was my DNA not found there, but someone else's was."Guede/Knox

 

[SMK]

And there's more evidence that Corder said raises serious doubt about Noura's guilt. When Jennifer's body was found on the floor in her bedroom, she was clutching some strands of hair in her hand. A preliminary examination showed the hair might be Jennifer's, but did not appear to be Noura's.

Police were so confident in their case they didn't do any further tests on the hair, which Corder argued, could very well be the killer's. "We do not know whose hair it was," she said.

"Should we have tested the hair? Hindsight being 20/20, yeah we probably could have," Merritt said.

"But, gee whiz - it was in her hand," Schlesinger pointed out. "Like he said, hindsight's 20/20," Miller replied.

"When the scientific evidence excluded Noura Jackson as the assailant, it was ignored," Corder said.. . ."I think [the] Memphis Police Department was feeling the heat. I think they wanted a quick fix," Frederick said. "Noura was a scapegoat. It's just like a witch hunt. They turned her into a witch."

________________________________________________________________________________
Same has been argued RE Knox - Otto, you would say because same guilt, I may lean toward same railroading.....ETA: I will grant you this much, Otto: the jury did vote as you indicate. So they saw guilt there also. ......:waitasec: From reading the many pages, I did begin to see some similarities in Knox and Jackson scenarios and behavior with police....

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml#ixzz1OSQueeDA

 

[Nova]

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/48hours/main6383885.shtml#ixzz1OSQueeDA

SMK, the "lightbulb moment" for me while watching the Jackson program was when one of the detective said words to the effect, "We waited awhile, but no other viable suspect presented itself." The implication NOT being, "We should work harder," but "nobody jumped up and confessed," so Noura must have done it.

But despite my misgivings, there is considerably more evidence against NJ than there is against AK. The surveillance tapes showing Noura buying medical supplies at 4 a.m. -- and the fact that Noura apparently failed to mention that trip to the store -- is very troubling. The flurry of cell phone calls up to 1 am and then beginning again at 3 am really has no equivalent in AK and RS turning off their phones for the night.

Of course, we heard little from the defense on the show. If we heard more, we might have very different impressions of the Jackson case.

 

[wasnt_me]

I will make this statement and cite once more - the Italian first appeal is not at all like the US one - it allows for as full of a review of the first trial as is needed to ensure a fair trial - all the way up to being a full retrial if necessary. This is a robust appeals system that I admire in all the ways that I abhor the way the Italians tend to run their initial trials.....

The issue is that the press keeps saying after the DNA is argued again, there will be closing arguments and a verdict in the fall. The press is making it seem like nothing else will be discussed.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, Rudy did! Why not Knox and Sollecito? as to the other, I think both sides will remain convinced of guilt or innocence, as we now maintain, regardless of the outcome. It is possibly not being delved into thoroughly, so how can it change unless it is? Who photoshopped?

If these cuts did indeed come from the night of the murder, I'd have to say that the evidence team seriously did not do their jobs, because we have not heard of his blood being found at the scene.

I believe he did cut himself that night, either on the window or by stabbing MK, if so, and they didn't find his blood, why not?